Saniefar v. Moore et al

Filing 52

Order partially GRANTING Defendants Ex parte application for order extending time to answer first amended complaint and continuing mandatory scheduling conference, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 3/27/2018. (Filing Deadline: 4/3/2018; Initial Scheduling Conference currently set for 4/9/2018 has been CONTINUED to 4/24/2018 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 8 (BAM) before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe) (Rosales, O)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

FRESNO DIVISION

9
FATEMEH SANIEFAR,

Case No. 1:17-cv-00823-LJO-BAM

10
Plaintiff(s),
11
vs.
12
RONALD D. MOORE, TANYA E.
13 MOORE, KENNETH RANDOLPH
MOORE, MAREJKA SACKS, ELMER
14 LEROY FALK, ZACHARY M. BEST,
MOORE LAW FIRM, a California
15 Professional Corporation, MISSION LAW
FIRM, a California Professional
16 Corporation, GEOSHUA LEVINSON,
RICK D. MOORE, WEST COAST CASP
17 AND ADA SERVICES, a California
Corporation, RONNY LORETO,
18
Defendant(s).
19

ORDER PARTIALLY GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR ORDER
EXTENDING TIME TO ANSWER
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
AND CONTINUING MANDATORY
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
(Doc. No. 49)

20
21

Currently pending before the Court is an ex parte application filed by Defendants

22

Ronald D. Moore, Tanya E. Moore, Kenneth Randolph Moore, Marejka Sacks, Elmer Leroy

23

Falk, Zachary M. Best, Moore Law Firm, Mission Law Firm, Geoshua Levinson, Rick D.

24

Moore, West Coast CASP and ADA Services and Ronnie Loreto (“Defendants”) on March 26,

25

2018. (Doc. No. 49.) By the application, Defendants request an extension of time to file their

26

responsive pleading to the first amended complaint, along with a thirty-day continuance of the

27

April 9, 2018 scheduling conference. Defendants explain that additional time is needed because

28

1

they recently retained new counsel following the District Court’s denial of their second motion

2

to dismiss in this action. Newly retained defense counsel now asserts that additional time is

3

necessary in order to prepare a proper response because the first amended complaint “consists

4

of 236 paragraphs in 51 pages of text, involving factually dense allegations of fraud, and

5

presentation of false evidence in a range of other cases” and “refers to 14 separate exhibits

6

totaling over 100 pages.” (Doc. No. 49-1, Declaration of Jeffrey D. Kirk at ¶ 4.) Defense

7

counsel also indicate that they have been forwarded media inquiries about the District Court’s

8

order, which have taken resources and time away from their ability to learn the facts and law of

9

the case. (Id. at ¶ 7.)

10

Plaintiff Fatemah Saniefar, through counsel, opposed the ex parte application, arguing

11

that Defendants have requested and received three separate extensions of time to respond to the

12

complaint in this action. Plaintiff further argues that despite knowing the due date for their

13

responsive pleading, Defendants elected to retain new counsel, resulting in further delay.

14

Plaintiff also points out that the representation may “fall through” given defense counsel’s

15

statement that counsel is still waiting for a fully signed disclosure and consent form/conflict of

16

interest waiver. (Doc. No. 51 at pp. 3-4.)

17

Having considered the parties’ arguments, the Court finds good cause for a brief

18

extension of time to allow newly retained counsel to become familiar with this action, and file a

19

response to the first amended complaint. However, in light of the previous extensions of time

20

granted in this matter, and because Defendants Tanya Moore and Zachary Best, both of whom

21

are attorneys, have been representing either themselves or the remaining defendants in this

22

matter since its inception in June 2017, the Court finds a two-week extension of time

23

unnecessary. There is no indication from counsel or the parties that Ms. Moore and Mr. Best

24

are unable to provide assistance with their defense in this action or that they are unable to assist

25

newly retained counsel with the relevant law and facts.

26
27
28

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ time to answer the first
amended complaint is hereby extended from March 27, 2018 to April 3, 2018.

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Mandatory Scheduling Conference be and is

2

hereby continued from April 9, 2018 to April 24, 2018, at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 8 (BAM)

3

before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe.

4

scheduling conference shall be calculated from the new date established herein.

All filings related to the mandatory

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 27, 2018

/s/ Barbara

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE